New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Voters Are Seldom Swayed by Local Campaign Stops

A survey during the 2012 election found that bus tours and visits to greasy spoons didn't do much to change voter opinions. Christopher Intagliata reports. 

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Donald Trump hasn't been running the most traditional campaign. And it's not just the unfiltered tweets. "He's neglecting campaigning full stop." Thomas Wood, an assistant professor of political science at Ohio State. "He's had about half as many public events as his opponent."

Wood's own campaign experience was with the Romney/Ryan ticket back in 2012. Every night, the campaign surveyed thousands of voters… 64,000 over all… asking them how they felt about the politicians, after a local visit. That is, if the voters actually knew about the visit.

"Instead of seeing candidate X visiting somewhere in Pensacola they're now seeing candidate X visit somewhere in their local market. And it's not really filtering through to that many folks that the visit was there—you know one event sort of looks like the other. They all sort of blend into each other. It's hard to make it clear to the person who's just watching the evening news that this was a visit in your local marketplace."


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


In other words, visits didn't even register for most locals or those in adjacent markets. And the voters' opinions of the candidates went up just a measly couple percent after local visits—before fading back to baseline a few days later. So despite the huge investment of time and money, the local campaign stops were pretty worthless—at least from a numbers standpoint. The findings are in the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. [Thomas Wood, What The Heck Are We Doing in Ottumwa, Anyway? Presidential Candidate Visits and Their Political Consequence]

As for this election season—any advice for the noncampaigning candidate? "I would provide advice that has nothing to do with his frequency of visits. I'd be providing advice as to how one comports oneself with the national press, try to earn some goodwill. I guess just being polite. I would say that Trump's sort of lethargic process of campaigning is probably the least of his worries." Better, he says, to just spend more time fundraising. To throw more cash at things that really work: like get-out-the-vote campaigns, and ads. Then again…Twitter's free.

—Christopher Intagliata

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe